DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Amendments, filed on 12/22/25, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 12/22/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/22/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The instant claims use the term “micro-nano structure” which would have suggested to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that of a microstructure in combination with a nanostructure. However, the structures as claimed and as supported by the specification appear to only be microstructures (see instant specification page 2, lines 19-21, page 3, lines 27-39; figs 2-3). Therefore, “micro-nano structure” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The instant claims use the term “micro-nano structure” which would have suggested to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that of a microstructure in combination with a nanostructure. However, the structures as claimed and as supported by the specification appear to only be microstructures (see instant specification page 2, lines 19-21, page 3, lines 27-39; figs 2-3), so one of ordinary skill in the art at the time would not have understood what is meant by the term “micro-nano structure.”
Examiner note: For examination purposes it will be assumed, based on the specification, that the term micro-nano structure is that of a micro-structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Free (US 2016/0115356 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 2, 4, and 5, Free teaches radiative cooling film (e.g., multi-layer article) with a periodic micro-nano structure (e.g., microstructure) on a surface thereof, wherein the radiative cooling film comprises a periodic micro-nano structure layer (e.g., microstructured adhesive layer) (320), a polymer film layer (310) (e.g., polymer substrate such as a tape backing and/or optical film comprising polyethylene terephthalate, polycarbonate, or polyvinyl chloride), and a reflective coating (e.g., multi-layer tape backing comprising a metal film); wherein the periodic micro-nano structure layer, the polymer film layer, and the reflective coating are arranged in a first order from top to bottom; the first order being the periodic micro-nano structure layer, the polymer film layer, and the reflective coating; wherein the periodic micro-nano structure layer has periodically arranged air periodically arranged dielectric (e.g., rubber or silicone) pillars (e.g., cylindrical or rectangular prism) (para 60, 62, 63, 75, 120; fig 3).
Free teaches the substrate may be multi-layered comprising a polymeric film and a metal film; wherein one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have known figure 3 comprising the substrate (310) and the microstructured adhesive layer (320) could be inverted, so Free would have taught or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention “wherein the periodic micro-nano structure layer, the polymer film layer, and the reflective coating are arranged in a first order from top to bottom; the first order being the periodic micro-nano structure layer, the polymer film layer, and the reflective coating.”
The limitations “second order,” “the second order being the polymer film layer, the periodic micro-nano structure layer, and the reflective coating,” and “airholes” are optional limitations and need not be taught by the prior art of Free.
Regarding claim 7 and 8, Free teaches the multilayer substrate may be an optical film comprising a polymer film which could be provided with coatings such as anti-fingerprint coatings or hardcoats (para 69-73); so Free would have taught or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein the radiative cooling film further comprises a protective layer located on a surface of the reflective coating away from the polymer film layer or the periodic micro-nano structure layer; and wherein the protective layer is an anti-fingerprint coating or a hard coating layer.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Free.
Regarding claim 3, Free teaches the use of microstructures and the particular dimensions and patterns characterizing the microstructural features are selected based upon the specific application for which the article is intended; so Free suggests changing the size of the microstructures per the application (para 60).
It is noted that change in size, scale, proportionality and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the microstructure adhesive layer of Free with the dimensions (i.e. width, period, and depth (or height) of the dielectric pillars) based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention.
Regarding claim 6, Free teaches the use of metals films or reflective coatings on the substrate (para 69, 71, 73); so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to pick that of an aluminum or silver coating; since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783